Parliament rejects bank transfer data deal

The European Parliament has rejected an agreement to share bank transfer data between the EU and United States that was meant to fight terrorist financing.

The Parliament voted 378 to 196 to throw out the interim, nine-month accord that took effect on 1 February. Thirty-one MEPs abstained.

A majority of MEPs rejected a last-ditch attempt by Cecilia Malmstrom, the European commissioner for home affairs, and the centre-right European People’s Party to postpone the vote for one month, to keep the accord alive.

Negotiated with the US by the European Commission and the EU’s member states, it sought to formalise secretive arrangements allowing the US Treasury to sift through bank data from SWIFT, an international banking consortium that transfers funds worldwide.

The US and the EU’s national governments say the accord is needed to root out terrorist groups that move funds around the world, and had warned MEPs that rejecting it would weaken counter-terrorism efforts and damage EU-US ties.

Dutch Liberal MEP Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, who led the Parliament’s attack on the deal, derided the accord as a bad one and called on the EU to negotiate a better agreement taking into account the EU’s Charter on Fundamental Rights.

“Currently our laws are being broken,” Hennis-Plasschaert said in an impassioned pre-vote speech to MEPs. “Parliament should not be complicit in this.”

She said if the US administration had proposed such an agreement to the US Congress, “we all know what the US Congress would say, don’t we?”

Hennis-Plasschaert’s resolution, which recommended that the Parliament throw out the temporary deal, said the SWIFT deal “violates the basic principles of data protection law”.

“We now expect the US and EU governments to come to terms with our determination and call on the EU Commission to immediately start negotiations on a better long-term deal,” said Martin Schulz, leader of the Socialists and Democrats in the Parliament.

Jerzy Buzek, the president of the Parliament, said: “The majority view in the European Parliament is that the correct balance between security, on the one hand, and the protection of civil liberties and fundamental rights, on the other, has not been achieved in the text put to us by the Council.”

Malmstrom called the rejection a “setback” but said the EU was determined to try to negotiate a new, similar pact with the US.

“I remain convinced that the programme enhances the security of our citizens,” Malmstrom said, adding that she would strive to get a new agreement “with very ambitious safeguards for privacy and data protection”.

The US government said it was “disappointed” with the vote. In a statement, it said the rejection “disrupts an important counter-terrorism programme,” and marked “a setback for US-EU counter-terror co-operation”.

The European Commission had no immediate reaction. However, the vote leaves it and national governments red-faced as they underestimated the will of MEPs to use their new-found powers under the Lisbon treaty.

Buzek said: “The Lisbon treaty, agreed by 27 member state governments, has given MEPs a right of veto over international agreements of this kind. The same governments must accept that the European Parliament will use this power in a way which reflects its own assessment of the concerns of Europe’s citizens.”

The Parliament’s ‘No’ means that the temporary accord, which provisionally took effect on 1 February, is scrapped and will force EU and US negotiators back to the drawing-board.

The Commission and national governments claim the deal, while not perfect, did commit US authorities to live up to several European demands on data protection and improved oversight.

British Conservative MEP Timothy Kirkhope, of the European Conservatives and Reformists group, had called for a postponement of the vote. He said: “It is not fair that the US’s efforts to tackle terrorist financing have become embroiled in an argument between EU institutions.

“The Council of Ministers was wrong to exclude the Parliament in the negotiation of this agreement, but we are where we are and the Parliament cannot reopen this temporary agreement.”

He said the US would still be able to access most of this information, without many of the safeguards built into the SWIFT agreement. “Instead of negotiating an agreement at EU level, the US will undoubtedly find it easier to negotiate with national governments,” he warned.

J. Fischer

J. Fischer

J. Fischer

The Parliament made the one right decision. Many Thanks.

Posted on 2/11/10 | 3:04 PM CET

J. Fischer

The Parliament made the one right decision. Many Thanks.

Posted on 2/11/10 | 3:04 PM CET

karim

It´s nice to see some meps step up and protect our rights. Although it seems we are just stalling them from passing this law in the future. I still can´t see how that would protect us against terrorism. Those 50€ the local idiots send to Afghanistan make little difference if any, in the fight against terrorism. And even if it does, I would first start by checking where the 50 000 millions Maddoff stole ended up, and I would start by looking in Israel. Are they saying they want to trace my meagre bank accounts all the way from washington when they can´t find what those institutions stole from under there nose????? taking people for imbeciles should also be a crime. I also wonder if Bush would have have put his dear friends the Ladden family through such scrutiny. Fight against terrorism is nothing but an excuse to scare us all and get what they want.

Posted on 2/12/10 | 2:55 AM CET

karim

It´s nice to see some meps step up and protect our rights. Although it seems we are just stalling them from passing this law in the future. I still can´t see how that would protect us against terrorism. Those 50€ the local idiots send to Afghanistan make little difference if any, in the fight against terrorism. And even if it does, I would first start by checking where the 50 000 millions Maddoff stole ended up, and I would start by looking in Israel. Are they saying they want to trace my meagre bank accounts all the way from washington when they can´t find what those institutions stole from under there nose????? taking people for imbeciles should also be a crime. I also wonder if Bush would have have put his dear friends the Ladden family through such scrutiny. Fight against terrorism is nothing but an excuse to scare us all and get what they want.

Posted on 2/12/10 | 2:55 AM CET

karim

It´s nice to see some meps step up and protect our rights. Although it seems we are just stalling them from passing this law in the future. I still can´t see how that would protect us against terrorism. Those 50€ the local idiots send to Afghanistan make little difference if any, in the fight against terrorism. And even if it does, I would first start by checking where the 50 000 millions Maddoff stole ended up, and I would start by looking in Israel. Are they saying they want to trace my meagre bank accounts all the way from washington when they can´t find what those institutions stole from under there nose????? taking people for imbeciles should also be a crime. I also wonder if Bush would have have put his dear friends the Ladden family through such scrutiny. Fight against terrorism is nothing but an excuse to scare us all and get what they want.

Posted on 2/12/10 | 2:55 AM CET

karim

It´s nice to see some meps step up and protect our rights. Although it seems we are just stalling them from passing this law in the future. I still can´t see how that would protect us against terrorism. Those 50€ the local idiots send to Afghanistan make little difference if any, in the fight against terrorism. And even if it does, I would first start by checking where the 50 000 millions Maddoff stole ended up, and I would start by looking in Israel. Are they saying they want to trace my meagre bank accounts all the way from washington when they can´t find what those institutions stole from under there nose????? taking people for imbeciles should also be a crime. I also wonder if Bush would have have put his dear friends the Ladden family through such scrutiny. Fight against terrorism is nothing but an excuse to scare us all and get what they want.

Posted on 2/12/10 | 2:55 AM CET

BeritK

Well I cant help wondering if the data trafic has stopped how come my bank is still asking me and every single other customer to accept release of data to 3 party autorities outside the european union? And how come my husbands bank have just started the same practise?

Posted on 10/5/10 | 8:19 AM CET

BeritK

Well I cant help wondering if the data trafic has stopped how come my bank is still asking me and every single other customer to accept release of data to 3 party autorities outside the european union? And how come my husbands bank have just started the same practise?

Posted on 10/5/10 | 8:19 AM CET

BeritK

Well I cant help wondering if the data trafic has stopped how come my bank is still asking me and every single other customer to accept release of data to 3 party autorities outside the european union? And how come my husbands bank have just started the same practise?

Posted on 10/5/10 | 8:19 AM CET

BeritK

Well I cant help wondering if the data trafic has stopped how come my bank is still asking me and every single other customer to accept release of data to 3 party autorities outside the european union? And how come my husbands bank have just started the same practise?